Uneeda Doll Co. v. P & M DOLL CO.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | Docket 29735.,No. 39,39 |
| Citation | 353 F.2d 788 |
| Parties | UNEEDA DOLL CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P & M DOLL CO., Inc., Salvatore Paganello and Joseph Paganello, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
David B. Kirschstein, New York City (Kirschstein, Kirschstein & Ottinger, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Harry Price, New York City, for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff appeals from an order in an action for copyright infringement denying a preliminary injunction.
Appellant has copyrights on a doll with one arm around a red and white striped pole and on a display box for the doll. It claims that appellee is infringing appellant's copyrights by making and selling a doll in a display box with its arm around a red and white striped pole.
It is well settled that there can be no copyright on an "idea" itself but only on the tangible "expression" of the idea. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 25 L. Ed. 841 (1879).
As Judge Learned Hand said in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960):
"Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the `idea,\' and has borrowed its `expression.\' Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc."
In the present case the learned district judge held "that any copying here was limited to the abstract idea of a doll on a pole in a display box and did not extend to Uneeda's tangible expression of that idea" (Uneeda Doll Co. v. P & M Doll Co., 241 F.Supp. 675, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)).
We have examined the products involved and find no reason to disturb this conclusion.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.
...cases claims of infringement have been rejected where only the idea but not the expression has been appropriated, Uneeda Doll Co. v. P & M Doll Co., 353 F.2d 788 (2d Cir. 1965) (copying limited to abstract idea of doll, on a red and white striped pole, in display box); or where the total ef......
-
Richard J. Zitz, Inc. v. Pereira, CV-97-0575.
...preliminary injunction in a copyright infringement case. Uneeda Doll Co. v. P & M Doll Co., 241 F.Supp. 675 (S.D.N.Y.1965), aff'd, 353 F.2d 788 (2d Cir. 1965) (no showing of likelihood of success is grounds for denial); Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry v. Grossbardt, 428 F.2d 551, 553-54 (2d Cir.1......
-
In re Avalon Software Inc., Bankruptcy No. 96-2099 TUC LO.
...Dollcraft Industries, Ltd. v. Well-Made Toy Manufacturing Co., 479 F.Supp. 1105, 1113 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) (quoting Uneeda Doll Co. v. P. & M. Doll Co., 353 F.2d 788, 789 (2d Cir.1965)). A computer program is a work of authorship subject to copyright. Tandy Corp. v. Personal Micro Computers, Inc......
-
Country Kids 'N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen
...and "all dolls attempting to express the same idea will of necessity display at least some similarity"); Uneeda Doll Co. v. P & M Doll Co., 353 F.2d 788, 789 (2d Cir.1965) (idea of doll in a display box with its arm around a red and white striped pole is not copyrightable); Ideal Toy Corp. ......